Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closing instructions

Contents 1 How to use this page 1.1 What not to propose for deletion here 1.2 Reasons to delete a template 1.3 Listing a template 2 Discussion 3 Current discussions 3.1 July 11 3.1.1 Template:Torchwood (series 3) 3.1.2 Template:Imdb ex 3.1.3 Template:Buyeo languages 3.1.4 Template:Topic by country 3.1.5 Template:Parallel discussion 3.2 July 10 3.2.1 Template:Spotlight working 3.2.2 Template:Top ten female golfers 3.2.3 Template:Ref indent 3.3 July 9 3.4 July 8 3.4.1 Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers 3.4.2 Template:KeepLocal 3.4.3 Template:Infobox School JeppeBoys 3.4.4 Template:Franchises owned by Lucas 3.4.5 Template:Jackson timeline 3.5 July 7 3.5.1 Template:Alt Image 3.5.2 Template:Aviation accidents and incidents 3.5.3 Template:Do not move to Commons 3.6 July 6 3.6.1 Template:Philadelphia Phillies 1st round 3.6.2 Template:Category relevant? 3.6.3 Template:Category unsourced 3.6.4 Template:Kristinia DeBarge 3.7 July 5 3.7.1 Template:Please help us improve the information on this page (this goes out to Annapolis historians, citizens and Annapolis High students / teachers) 3.7.2 Template:Torchwood (series 3) 3.7.3 Template:Michelle Paver 3.7.4 Template:Clarence Gagnon 3.8 July 4 3.8.1 Template:Breaking News 3.8.2 Template:Diagnosis Murder character 3.8.3 Template:Honduras Squad 1999 FIFA World Youth Championship 4 Old discussions 4.1 July 3 4.1.1 Diagnosis Murder 4.1.2 Template:Wronguser 5 Completed discussions 5.1 Closing discussions 5.2 To review 5.3 To convert 5.4 To Substitute 5.5 To orphan 5.6 Ready for deletion 6 Archive and Indices

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] July 11

[edit] Template:Torchwood (series 3)

Template:Torchwood (series 3) (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unnecessary template as the third series of Torchwood was only one story, and as such only one link. Children of Earth was the single story arc. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 14:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Imdb ex

Template:Imdb ex (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

I can honestly see no reason for this template. We can link internally to IMDB, but what use is an external link to the site's front page ever going to be? Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No reason for it, very simple to create an external link to it. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 16:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Buyeo languages

Template:Buyeo languages (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Is this template really needed? It has two entries, should such a template even be on WP? And the Buyeo origins of the Japonic languages are disputed. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Topic by country

Template:Topic by country (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This template (and it's subtemplates) is a resource hog. If a page is uncached, it will delay loading of the page for 48 seconds, and then in most cases, the parser will timeout before it even finishes. Such behaviour is simply not acceptable when we want to present pages to users. The design of the template is simply unsuited and cannot even be fixed in my opinion. It just tries to include too much information. As a matter of fact, for many usecases it will present mostly redlinks, so it's useless anyways, and people should write specific navboxes or write a List of, instead. Some statistics for the page Health care:

Served by srv215 in 48.297 secs.
Preprocessor node count: 380389/1000000
Post-expand include size: 457427/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 279516/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 5/500

Parser statistics: trace force trace —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Parallel discussion

Template:Parallel discussion (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This doesn't really to be in use. Moreover, it doesn't work! (Check the 3 articles "using" it). Magioladitis (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• To play devil's advocate, is there something else which does the same job? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought about that. I just know that parallel discussions have been held to Wikipedia for years and a template was never needed as far as I remember. Usually an editor would say: "There is a discussion being held...". -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I see this as being very useful at one time. To respond to Magioladitis' comment, if we delete templates for the sole reason that "a user could write it out", you could pretty much delete every template on Wikipedia. :-P GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 16:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 10

[edit] Template:Spotlight working

Template:Spotlight working (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Looking for further comment on the necessity of this template. It's the same thing as {{under construction}}, except personalized. –blurpeace ^(talk) 15:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I see this as fulfilling a useful role, specific to the WP:SPOTLIGHT concept; it a) indiates a very short-term edit in progress, b) helps make this clear to others who are collaborating, and c) also serves to show spotlight in action to other users. Of course, it is up to individuals whether they choose to use it, but as for its deletion, I see no policy reason that it should be removed.  Chzz  ►  20:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, shouldn't the {{under construction}} template fulfill "a" and "b," as to why it was created, and "c" is notified through the {{spotlight}} template issued to all articles being working on by Spotlight (and through the history tab)? ACID only uses a talk page template, and has no "specialized templates" that overlap the function of others. –blurpeace ^(talk) 21:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment well, I've always disliked {{under construction}} personally - it looks like very old-fashioned websites. It's a wiki, if course it's under construction, all of it. But other people seem to like it, so I have no problem with it being there. I don't see WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a good reason to TfD it though.  Chzz  ►  00:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment, isn't it a bit hypocritical (if it was true) to say that my argument is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT when yours is the same? My argument is based on the idea that it is overlapping in function with another established template, thus making it unnecessary. –blurpeace ^(talk) 05:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per chzz.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Top ten female golfers

Template:Top ten female golfers (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

The template for male golfers was nominated for TfD and the concensus was delete (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_21#Template:Top_ten_male_golfers. It seems that the same rationale should apply to both templates. Deville (Talk) 02:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

v • d • e World rankings · Top ten tennis players as of July 6, 2009 ATP singles ATP doubles WTA singles WTA doubles ▲ Roger Federer ▼ Rafael Nadal ▬ Andy Murray ▬ Novak Djokovic ▬ Juan Martín del Potro ▬ Andy Roddick ▬ Gilles Simon ▲ Jo-Wilfried Tsonga ▼ Fernando Verdasco ▬ Fernando González ▬ Bob Bryan ▬ Mike Bryan ▬ Daniel Nestor ▬ Nenad Zimonjić ▬ Lukáš Dlouhý ▬ Leander Paes ▲ Mark Knowles ▲ Mahesh Bhupathi ▲ Wesley Moodie ▼ Kevin Ullyett ▬ Dinara Safina ▬ Serena Williams ▬ Venus Williams ▬ Elena Dementieva ▬ Svetlana Kuznetsova ▬ Jelena Janković ▬ Vera Zvonareva ▬ Victoria Azarenka ▬ Caroline Wozniacki ▬ Nadia Petrova ▬ Cara Black ▬ Liezel Huber ▲ Anabel Medina Garrigues ▲ Virginia Ruano Pascual ▲ Samantha Stosur ▼ Ai Sugiyama ▼ Lisa Raymond ▲ Rennae Stubbs ▼ Květa Peschke ▼ Serena Williams ▼ Venus Williams

This is similar and is allowed I don't get it? Explain Please!98.240.44.215 (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Ref indent

Template:Ref indent (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Ref indent end (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This template, in wide use in articles on South American history, appears to be an arbitrary deviation in style from the normal reference markup provided by {{refbegin}}, and apparently has display issues on different browsers. If the indentation it provides is desirable then it should be added to {{refbegin}} itself rather than having two templates with slightly different formatting. Recommend that this is redirected to {{refbegin}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. No need to indent references nor to duplicate templates. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Unless and until this "hanging paragraph" format is added to {{refbegin}} template, this template series is necessary; it is the way of producing hanging paragraphs in "Bibliography", "Works cited", "References" or "Further reading" lists (not notes lists), and it results in separating alphabetized bibliographical entries so that they are easier to perceive (pick out) of a list. Use of asterisks producing bullets is neither conventional bibliographical format nor easy to read and is unfamiliar format for many readers who are not Wikipedia editors. Bullets are suitable for External links sections, but not for bibliographical lists. Unless the hanging paragraph (indent) feature is available in the {{refbegin}} (which is probably unlikely, since it does not work with bullets properly and most Wikipedia editors may still want to use bullets), deleting this template series and redirecting to {{refbegin}} will leave Wikipedia editors with no way of creating hanging paragraphs, and all those articles already using the template series, will lose their hanging paragraph format. --NYScholar (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Here's an example of my usage of it in Bibliography for Harold Pinter. --NYScholar (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that there is currently discussion regarding a motion to topic ban you from that subject specifically because of your refusal to keep to Wikipedia's accepted refencing styles, I don't see that as a positive example. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not an argument. NYScholar being banned for his bad conduct does not reflect on the template that he and other editors use.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary: it seems very pertinent to note that NYScholar's opinion on referencing above is incongruous with that of the wider community to the point where his continued insistence on using it actually led to a site-wide ban. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course it isn't -it is the logical Fallacy of association. And furthermore NYScholar's ban wasn't carried out because of his ideas about citation styles specifically. His personal misconduct was a much larger issue. Frankly I find it insulting that you seem to put other editors in favour of the template in the same category as problematical editors merely on the grounds of preferring a hanging indent. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's misdirection. having several different citation styles for no particularly good reason is a bad idea. It's a bad idea when NYScholar did it, which is one of the several reasons he was sanctioned, and it's a bad idea when other people do it. I'm not implying cause and effect so much as simply pointing out that this conclusion was already separately reached outside this TfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that the use of less common citation styles is so undesirable as to merit disciplinary measures (you actually seem to imply that it was an important part of the decision to ban NYScholar) then I think you should start by gaining consensus for this opinion and inserting it in the MOS. Currently the manual of styles allow any number of different citations styles as long as they are consistent within the article - it even states that other editors should use the citation style used by the main editor of an article (NYScholar was quite possibly the "main" editor of Harold Pinter). In short you are fudging the issue by suggesting that NYScholar's ban shows a consensus for allowing only one kind of citations styles while the fact is that no such consensus has ever been reached and that multiple citation styles are explicitly allowed by the MOS. There is no valid reason in policy for deteling this template the use of which is currently sanctioned by the MOS. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[Point of information:] I am not currently banned. Your statement is irrelevant to the consideration of this particular discussion about a template. Whether or not you see it "as a positive example", any trained bibliographer will. Please stop injecting unresolved "Wikipedia politics" pertaining to a contributor into a discussion of "Templates for deletion"; to do so is disruptive, in my view. (cont.)

My point is to provide an illustration of the use of the template in Wikipedia. It is appropriate for me to provide a current example of a usage of hanging paragraphs in this discussion. I provided the link to a bibliography that is not the subject of disputes as a bibliography. Many other bibliographies in Wikipedia still use the hanging paragraph/template under discussion here. (cont.)

Please see the rationales for the template by its creator (directly below), the use of it in "See also" sections pertaining to such highly developed lists in WP:MOS, where it remains an option to use (especially if one takes into account the statement at the top of the page of WP:MOS, and the "comment/question" provided and raised by cjllw, which are entirely reasonable and which provide links to Featured articles in Wikipedia that currently use this template. Those comments are in the spirit of this template deletion discussion. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. When I created this template over a year and a half ago now, it was designed to address a specific problem of usability and readability. It has a practical intent, not an arbitrary or purely stylistic one. The issue concerns how alpha-sorted bibliography lists such as references (not "Notes" or inline cites produced by {{reflist}}) are most often used and read. Bibliographies are consulted, not read like normal text—that is to say the reader turns to the section in order to look something up (namely a specific reference or source). The reader needs to be able to pick out the keywords—usually author(s)' names, publ. year—from the bibliographic list in order to find the reference work sought.

  Unfortunately the default (read: absence of any) presentational style for bibliographies in wikipedia is in undifferentiated bulleted-list format. When the length of the biblio list grows beyond a few entries, and individual entries start to word-wrap over two or more lines (as they are easily wont to do when the references are to scholarly publications in many fields, eg a chapter by multiple authors in an edited book or conference proceeding), then it becomes increasingly irritating & tiresome to pick out what you are looking for from the undifferentiated mass of text, or even to tell where one reference finishes and the next begins. By using a hanging indent, this template rectifies both: individual entries can be told apart at a glance, and the keyword/s (authors' names) being looked for stand out, easily identifiable by running your eye (as it is naturally inclined to do) down the left-hand side of the list.

  If this approach seems novel or 'nonstandard' in wikipedia, might I suggest that this has more to do with the majority of articles paying little-to-no attention to the readability or functionality of their bibliographies/references sections. The formatting provided by this template is not really deviating from some consciously applied and thought-out presentational standard; the default is an absence of any standard. It also has to do with many/most articles' references containing only the bare minimum of information to identify a specific work cited—quite often, less than a bare minimum. If an article's given references are no more than A.N. Author, Some Book then this template prob doesn't help much. But for those editors & articles that do provide a fuller description of the work cited, it is useful.

  It also has the advantage of mirroring more closely how the vast majority of real-world bibliography listings (print & online) are presented. Take at random and non-fiction work that may be to hand, look at its bibliography. You can be practically guaranteed that it will employ some kind of typographical device to separate its entries and highlight the keywords, eg. indents, other offset spacings, bolding, caps, etc. It's all done essentially for a common reason—the reader's eye soon grows tired when confronted with masses and slabs of text. Try reading a mediaeval manuscript or an 18thC newspaper, & one can readily appreciate why innovations such as spacing between words and paragraphs caught on. It's bad enough when you're just reading, but exacerbated if you're looking for something specific in a sea of letters.

  I do not think this template should be merged or incorporated in {{refbegin}} either. This latter template (which I wouldn't describe as 'normal reference markup'), has a different function, primarily all it does is reduce the text's font size ("references-small"). As refbegin is already deployed at who knows how many articles, I doubt it would be appreciated if all these unexpectedly started indenting the text as well.

  Not everyone will find the hanging indent style useful or warranted, and nor should they be forced to use it. Others, besides myself, evidently do find it useful, and there's no reason to desist. It doesn't contravene any policy, nor any MOS guideline. As noted it is used in 100s of articles by now, without any ill-effect. I know of at least 4 Featured Articles that use {{ref indent}}, its presence during FAC did not provoke any apoplectic comments from the FA reviewers. It is no more unnecessary than any of the hundreds other formatting templates and code options available, tidily formatted infoboxes, and the like.

  One last comment, the so-called browser display issue is not really the template's issue, it's a minor glitch in the way MSIE treats bullets, differently and counterintiutively to other browsers. All that happens is the bullet marker in MSIE shifts to the right (ie is indented as well), and so looks a little untidy. The issue is trivially solved however, by using invisible bullet markers—a colon (:) instead of an asterisk (*)—in front of each entry, just how it's done on a daily basis on talkpages, when indenting one's comments beneath another's. I should prob update the doco to make this clearer.--cjllw ʘ TALK 15:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  The {{refbegin}} template does not have a different use: its purpose is to format the references section for readability. If you believe that indentation is desirable then the best thing to do would be to argue to have it added to {{refbegin}}, as it is far more widely deployed. Currently, the effect is that a certain portion of our articles (mainly the ones under your purview) arbitarily deviate in their style of referencing from the rest of the encyclopedia. Whether the MoS dictates one style or another or not is a red herring; it should be obvious that a basic level of consistency is desirable even if it is not stringently enforced by policy. Most of the keeps so far have completely ignored this basic point in favour of the "I like the way this one looks better" argument, which was not the reason for nomination. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per CJLL Wright. It is the best style for readability of references.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Very easy to find the author and distinguish between works when this template is used. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The result looks awful. MOS prescribes a bulleted list for references, and that is a better format than this one; it is just as readable even in a long reference list. I just discovered this template while looking up Robert Brown (botanist) (mentioned in a book I am reading). It is used to format the Publications section, and it just looks like a mistake: a huge hanging indent, like nothing in any publication I have seen. I was going to go in and fix the formatting, then I saw that it was a template nominated for deletion, so here I am. Finell (Talk) 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The way in which the template is used in that Robert Brown article (without the authors' names + publ. year keywords) is not quite how it was envisioned. For some examples that are more representative and closer to intended usage, try looking at Ciconiiformes#References, Mesoamerican ballgame#References (this one accommodating text flow around images), Church of Divine Science#References, Trepanation in Mesoamerica#References, Mayan languages#References or Sylvanus Morley#References (these last two are Featured Articles). See if you think these look any better, and consider whether they achieve the stated purposes above of readability and enhancing visibility of the very keywords one looks for to locate an entry in the list. Would it be said that the hanging indents obscure the content and appearance of the reference, or would it not be that it makes each reference entry a little more distinct and easier to pick out as a unit block?

    Re whether MOS prescribes bulleted lists (and I would sincerely argue that it does not), bullets are not part of the template or under discussion, it's the indentation that the nominator appears to be objecting to. And I don't believe the MOS says anything specific about hanging indents in references, one way or the other.--cjllw ʘ TALK 15:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree that the hanging indent style looks awful. The bulleted list for references is more compact and much easier to follow; it is also consistent with the way the wiki software displays the footnotes. The whole point of having the MOS is to try to have some consistency from one article to the next on Wikipedia. Individual editors should not be able to design their own non-MOS reference formats. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• comment/question. As I mentioned in the edit summary of my previous posting here, I would like to consider and address some of the additional points raised by Chris C. , but am running short of time right now. That will have to be for another day or hour, as soon as I get the chance. However, in the interim I wonder whether the nominator or someone else might care to explain something to me. If the effect produced by this template is so deviant and contrary to MOS sensibilities that it demands deletion, then how is it possible that on at least four separate occasions articles using it have passed Featured Article review? The articles Nahuatl, Mayan languages, Rongorongo and Decipherment of rongorongo were all using this template at the time of their respective FARs (a fifth, Sylvanus Morley, also uses it but this was added after reaching FA. I would have added it before if only at the time the template had been available. And in case you're wondering, I only collaborated on the first two of those four). And yet, despite the rigours of FAC and the minute examination for MOS compliance that FAs endure, the reviewers happily assented to promote them to FA ("wikipedia's very best work" and all that) in the conscious knowledge that this references style was being employed. Once might be a fluke perhaps, but four times now different sets of FA reviewers evidently agreed that this template, when correctly used, is in compliance with MOS considerations—or at least poses no threat to the well-being of an article.--cjllw ʘ TALK 16:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Much like everything else on the project, FA review is highly dependent on the specific people involved. On three of those FARs (the failed nom and another two), the referencing style was brought up; indeed, it appears that the primary reason that the issues was allowed to stand was because our guidelines on presentation of Harvard referencing are less clear (because comparatively few articles use it). Given that, I would expect that should this template survive it be restricted solely to articles using Harvard referencing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The template should be allowed to be used wherever it provides value. It should not be restricted to "Harvard referencing"; many articles in Wikipedia already use many other optional kinds of citation styles; it is obstructive to remove an option that is already so widely used in Wikipedia. Everywhere it is currently used and where, in my view and that of other professional bibliographers, it makes the lists more readable, would become unnreadable if the template is deleted. The example I gave (at top) is only one instance of that. The use of this template was suggested to me by another editor, who enabled me to use it. I was not able to construct hanging paragraphs until the editor alerted me to the template, which I subsequently also see is listed in the "See also" section of parts of WP:MOS pertaining to layout of lists and lists. Please see the guidance provided to all editors at the top of that style guidelines page. One is directed to use "common sense". Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) is one of these subsections of the WP:MOS, which refers editors and other readers to this hanging paragraph template. --NYScholar (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS makes it clear that those bulleted lists are bare-bones type bibliographies (see others' "keep" explanations above, including that of the creator of the template). "Full citations" in Wikipedia (including even those provided by citation templates) produce more information than the bare bones lists; when full bibliographical entries are given, and the lists are alphabetized, the correct format is a hanging paragraph, so one can see the first line of each alphabetized entry. When bullets are used and lists are not being alphabetized by the last name of the author/compiler/editor(s) or the first letter of the first main word of a title (defaults in bibligraphical formatting), then hanging paragraphs are not needed. But when lists are alphabetized and there is more than one line in the items included, then hanging paragraphs increase readability. The choice is currently up to the editor and compiler of the bibliographical list (e.g., References, Works cited, Further reading, etc.). These are options currently in Wikipedia. [I will not be working on articles in Wikipedia in the near future due to time constraints; so I do not expect to be able to participate further in this discussion.] --NYScholar (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I can only comment, in response to Chris C's remark "FA review is highly dependent on the specific people involved", that if so then this is doubly true for XfD discussions like this one here. Like it or not, whether reviewed by two or two hundred people, the FA process is the highest level of quality review we have on wikipedia. If some aspect of content or style survives—several times—the FA process, then surely one is entitled to infer that its fitness for articles and compatibility with MOS has been actively reviewed and found acceptable.--cjllw ʘ TALK 15:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: ugly and unnecessary. Bulleted lists are the convention throughout wikipedia (including in the documentation for this template), and render this template superfluous for separation of list items. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Further, I see no basis in WP:LOW for this ugly variant style. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi Hrafn. I wrote those template instructions, and I can categorically affirm that my intention was not to demand the use of bullets in bibliographies, either with the template or without. I wrote them up when I was first developing it, and the usage examples I provided at the time pre-dated me working out the better solution to the MSIE peculiarity by using invisible bullets (as we all do on a daily basis in talk pages, even this one). Rest assured, if this template is retained I will update the documentation to reflect its intended usage better. I had just not got around to it.

    You are free of course to have your own opinion on whether this (or any other) template results in an ugly, or an attractive, presentation. That's a matter for your own taste. Others, such as myself, have different opinions. But WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:ILIKEIT are insufficient grounds for XFD discussions. Instead, if there is a particular instance (presumably it was Church of Divine Science that led you here) that you're involved in and don't think the presentation is suitable, then like anything else the first step would be to sort it out on the article's talk page with any other interested parties. In that particular case, if you want to take it out then go right ahead, if it's ok with other major contributors there. But personal dislikes on one page should not spill over into other articles where contributors are happy with and agree on it being used.--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• A few points for your consideration CJLL: (i) it is up to you, as the documentation-writer, to explain in your documentation what valid purpose (if any) this template serves. If your documentation fails to articulate this, then it is your problem, not ours. (ii) Your characterisation of my comment as "WP:ILIKEIT" is inaccurate. I did not only describe the style that this template imposes as "ugly" but also as "unnecessary"/"superfluous". I will also make the further comment that the indentation creates a disjoint in the middle of the entry, that in fact makes it more difficult to scan (as it makes subsequnt lines look like they are part of a different entry). (iii) You failed to address my point that the style that this template imposes has no basis in the appropriate MOS: WP:LOW. I would strongly suggest that acceptance there as an (alternative) standard should be a prerequisite for inclusion as a style-template. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

LOW uses for its examples bullets and no indentations, but does not prescribe either of them. Personally I like bullets for most purposes, and use them when I make a list, but there are other ways. I don't want to assume that guidelines deliberately left ambiguous are intended to follow my one preferences. As it happens, I like hanging indentation also, but did not realize we had an easy way to do it. I should point out that the basic principle of our underlying default handbook, the Chicago Manual of Style, is that there is a general style, but it is not compulsory--just like our guidelines. This flexibility is what makes Chicago so useful in the first place. (and they do not use bullets--it's widespread use is a web convention dating from html 1.0, at a time options needed to be kept as simple as possible. DGG (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:LOW opens with the statement "This style guideline aims to create a consistent method of displaying lists of works..." It thereafter gives examples that are consistently delimited by bullet points, not indentation. It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that the "consistent method" involves bullet-points rather than indentation. A style guideline whose stated object is consistency should not be read as being "deliberately left ambiguous are intended to follow my one preferences". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Hrafn, after introducing itself the top-level MOS page begins with the statement, "An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. One way of presenting information may be as good as another is, but consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion." If used this template fully complies with internal consistency. As for WP:LOW, it is apparent that it was not written with the specific type of "full" bibliography in mind, that we are talking about. It is directed more towards internal lists such one of author's works, in an article about that author. And not, reference bibliographies. Still your point about updating the style guideline is noted, and it may be well to seek more explicit mention of this template's style alternative in the relevant MOS sections.--cjllw ʘ TALK 15:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not seeing the case for having a separate template when one already does the job. If the other one needs to be fixed in some way, better to make proposals to change that one (without making it non-standard). I just don't like the idea of having two templates which do basically the same thing and which evolve and change separately, because redundancy becomes a major problem. Orderinchaos 05:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• comment. There seems to be some confusion here. First Eleassar, and now Orderinchaos, are commenting on the grounds that this {{ref indent}} template has the same function as, and is redundant with, {{refbegin}}. But this is not true. All that {{refbegin}} basically does is to make the apparent font size of the bibliographic references smaller (to match the output size of {{reflist}}). It is only a wrapper for the code <div class="references-small">. It also sets the left margin to 1.5em, and apparently has the optional facility to display output in multiple columns (but this functionality does not work in MSIE browsers). That is all.

  By contrast, what {{ref indent}} does is to apply a hanging indent if the reference's text wraps over more than one line in the browser window display. That is a different visual effect to reducing the font size; if one template was just redirected to the other then its functionality would be lost. Ref indent does not do the job of refbegin, or vice versa. In what sense are these 'doing the same thing'?

  Although Chris C. has advanced the argument that these templates basically have the same purpose, ie apply formatting to references (actually they'll apply their formatting to any text that you wrap them around), it does not automatically follow that all templates used to format references should be merged into one all-purpose template, or that any one's function should subsume the others'. There exist scads of Biographical infobox templates around for example, all with a common purpose and many with similar or identical fields. It would be technically possible to merge their functionality together into one template, but is it necessary or a good idea?

  However, I don't think the option of incorporating the hanging indent functionality into {{refbegin}} can be decided upon in this TfD. It would require some discussion and consultation with the maintainers and users of {refbegin} first, as the unexpected introduction of functionality and appearance change would likely cause some alarm. It would also take some template coding nous to implement, probably outside of the responsibility of this TfD's closer. By all means, raise a separate discussion on it somewhere. Personally, while I do appreciate there can be value and savings in maintenance in some template mergers, it needs to be properly considered (look at how long it's taken to unite some of the main {cite XXX} templates to a single code engine). {Refbegin} and {ref indent} both function perfectly fine as independent templates, and they can also very simply be used together (by stacking one after the other) to produce both their effects. If you want to see smaller-text references, use {{refbegin}}. If you want hanging indents for multi-line references, use {{ref indent}}. If you don't, then don't. How could it be simpler?

  In any event, I think the main bugbear for the nominator is the principle of whether editors should be allowed at all to apply the minor styling change to references that this template supplies. As I have tried to explain, this indent styling has a function and specific purpose, it is not purely cosmetic. It is a simple solution intended as an enhancement and visual aide for identifying entries in bibliographies. In particular, for bibliographies that may be lengthy and/or contain elements that wrap over multiple lines, where the denseness of text acts to camouflage the keywords that the reader is looking for.

  Now I think that it is highly probable that the nominator, or probably most folks, has not experienced or noticed this to be an issue. Most articles' bibliographies are short, and most contain abbreviated references that take up only a single line each. This template is not for those cases. But just because someone has either never thought about, noticed, used, or imagined that this can be an issue in articles with 'fuller' bibliographies, does not mean that such issues go unnoticed by others.

  Let me provide an example, hopefully this will make the intent clearer. I invite any/all of you to look for a specific reference, say Suárez 1977 or Flores Farfán 2006, in this list first. Then, try looking for the same references in this one, which uses ref indent. Can you see any difference? (NB, this is not a contrived example, it's the bibliography taken from the current Nahuatl article).--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not add code to refbegin to do that, and have an "indent=yes" type option turning it on? For example {{Census 2006 AUS}} which I designed a while ago has options which, depending on what you select, links to a completely different page depending on whether the "quick" variable is turned on or off. That way we get the functionality without having to keep two quite different codebeasts consistent over time. Oh, and those instances of it which do not link the attribute work the same way that they always did, as the extra code hinges on a conditional. Orderinchaos 11:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep , but consider the coding that Orderinchaos suggests. There are advantages to bringing options together, but also strong advantages to keeping templates simple. This particular template's format seems like a good idea in principle: there is no need to be perfectly uniform, but we should recognize the needs of different situations. I am very glad we have this option, which I intend to use--I think for long lists where the entries are multi-line, that it is a much clearer style than our present usual one, particularly in the very wide column general format of web pages. We will of course have the problem of deciding which style to use, and the general rule for references should hold, not to change the style established in an article with necessity and consensus. (a very good rule--we should be devoting most of our efforts to finding references where we need them; arranging them is secondary)DGG (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the suggestions and constructive comments, DGG and Orderinchaos. I would be prepared to consider migrating this hanging indent functionality into {refbegin}'s code, if that can be done as an optional switch, turned off by default/if not selected. It would have to be debugged first naturally, & I'm pretty sure it won't display properly if refbegin's multi-column option is used so maybe there'd need to be some circuitbreaker for that (though I don't see advantage in using multicolumns for full biblio list). Really, both templates are little more than wrappers/shortcut for div coding statements, so in that respect they are quite simple and once set up it is hard to see that they would require much maintenance. I personally think they could go on living as separate templates, but if it is thought more convenient to bring these reference formatting templates together into one then wld be glad to discuss options. --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment To the comments about the style being "ugly" it would serve to look at the styles used for bibliographies in APA[1], MLA[2] Chicago[3] styles require the use og hanging indents in bibliogpahies. It would seem weird to discourage it here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  What works in one format does not necessarily work elsewhere. The whole point in having our own MoS is that if people simply chose to follow the guidelines of whatever work they pleased, we'd have an "ugly" encyclopedia because of significant inconsistencies. This template exacerbates that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, the current MOS does not discourage the use of different styles for citations and references. If you wish to enforce uniformity the right place to start would be to change the MOS - currently the MOS does not provide a rationale for deletion of non-standard reference templates.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem to me that arguments advanced against this template's usage run counter to the spirit, if not the actual letter, of the three Wikipedia:MOS#General_principles. Strict style consistency between articles is neither demanded nor expected; internal consistency is the recommended goal (Wikipedia:Cite#How_to_present_citations explicitly allows for half-a-dozen or so distinct cite/ref methods, "Editors are free to use any method; no method is preferred" etc). If major contributors are happy with and agree on some given style, it's inappropriate to change on basis of stylistic preference alone. And in the absence or ambiguity of specific MOS recommendations, it's quite permissible to see "what other writers do about the problem", which would include pointing to widely used conventions such as MLA, APA etc.

The regrettable episode surrounding NYS' recent ban is a complete red herring; I can see no mention of this template anywhere in the disputes that led up to this (IMO, disquieting) turn of events.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per cjllw. Sheesh, DRAMA. Are we really running so low on space that we need to worry about this? Oh, no, we can't be, because this discussion is probably OVER 9000Kb.  Chzz  ►  00:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• comment (?) Heh, Chzz. Unless we're going for some sort of record, I don't see how relisting could generate "a more thorough discussion" than what has already taken place. If the TfD discussion listed just after this one back on 29 Jun could be closed as 'no consensus to delete' with only 4 brief comments, I can't see the logic in relisting this one that had triple the number of participants.

  Can we get a speedy close as default keep/no consensus to delete here please, or at the very least some explanation as to why it would make any sense to go through all this again. I've always thought double jeopardy to be a sound legal principle.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  • It was -I- who relisted it and it is because I think the issue needs more discussion. No two TfDs are alike and this has nothing to do with setting records or double jeopardy (which is quite a jump in logic). JPG-GR (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 9

[edit] July 8

[edit] Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers

Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Tell me why we need to have this? The CC-BY-SA license does not have the allowable option of disclaimers as an invariant section (which is one of the reasons why we hated the GFDL anyway) ViperSnake151  Talk  18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA Section 4(a): "... You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the disclaimer of warranties with every copy of the Work You Distribute or Publicly Perform..." Dragons flight (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:KeepLocal

Template:KeepLocal (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

While the intention might have been good, this template gives the impression that the author can add additional restrictions outside the text defined by given license (cc-by-*/gfdl). Any image with the correct license can, and should be moved to commons. This also applies to {{NoCommons}}. _→AzaToth 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I may disagree. Commons copyright policies are much more strict compared to Wikipedia's policies, which is why it's more helpful to keep local copies of these images here. I've seen situations where Wikipedia image files have been transferred over to the Commons, to be deleted over there due to new stricter policies and various copyright paranoia. It would be much easier if the files were never transferred over there in the first place. Many such articles were left without reasonable images that were alright for use on Wikipedia. ddima.talk 20:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You're thinking of {{Do not move to Commons}}. For images that are truly free, there really is no need to keep local copies of them. howcheng {chat} 22:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • There are motivations for keeping images here. For example, vandalized image descriptions generally will be reverted faster when they are local than on Commons. Similarly local talk pages are easier to follow than Commons ones. In rare cases I've even seen Commons and Enwiki have divergent ideas about what should be included in an image description. Once upon a time, CSD actually said that local images should not be removed if someone had requested that the local copy be preserved (e.g, via {{KeepLocal}}). None of this prevents a copy from also existing on Commons, of course. However, after literally years of pushing, people removed that exception from CSD when people like me got tired of pushing back. So now when some of the global warming images I care about have their descriptions vandalized that vandalism tends to be more persistent. Sigh. If there were unified cross-project watchlists the situation might be better but we aren't there yet. Regardless though, I've given up. The other side has won. So enjoy the unified but less well managed images, and go ahead and delete the templates if you must.  :-P. Dragons flight (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - the template is rarely used but it has some valid usage. Firstly, the applicability of some licenses is not always clear. I would remember the sage over {{PD-Russia}} or {{Kremlin.ru}}, etc. It is better to keep local copies of such images if they can be claimed as fair use or other Commons-incompatible license. Secondly, sometimes it is easier to patrol images that a kept locally if they are a frequent vandalism target. Thirdly, there are users that for some reasons dislike Commons projects. They cannot prevent us from copying their images to Commons. But if we delete their images locally and upload them on Commons under different names then it is quite easy to violate terms of GFDL. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox School JeppeBoys

Template:Infobox School JeppeBoys (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused infobox template apparently meant to be specific to one school. Whpq (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Franchises owned by Lucas

Template:Franchises owned by Lucas (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Wholly unnecessary "navigation" box. Direct ownership by George Lucas isn't asserted or clear in any of these -- except maybe Star Wars. However, layers of corporate identity between them makes items' inclusion here dubious. Additionally, the question of shared/equal ownership e.g. Indiana Jones with Spielberg. As creator asserts on talk page, Monkey Island's presence and The Seventh Tower is because Lucas owns? created? a company that in turn created these entires -- and he probably had very little if anything to do with creating them. Anyhow, point is, items' inclusion is haphazard and dubious. Anything with a strong and immediately significant connection to Lucas can be included in {{George Lucas}} (which might need to be renamed from "George Lucas filmography" to something else -- but that's a more elegant solution than this needless and ORish template). --EEMIV (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This template doesn't seem to violate anything. Templates over franchises owned by companies seems to be acceptable on here esecially this one. This one list all franchises owned by the Lucas company. --VitasV (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Further comment from what I've seen, EEMIV seems to complaining on nearly anything I do whether relevant or not. Merely his arguments seem to be on his own morals rather than the correct information. To him, what he sees as unethical is what he doesn't like or what he doesn't beleive in good or not he sees as wrong no matter how proven the subject is. Example for when argument over the sun was the center of the universe was fought against with many think the Earth was the center. Mainly what I say here is in theory, but a theory conjured from what is seen of EEMIV's actions. --VitasV (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary template, as Lucas doesn't directly own any of these - his company does. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - yes I know. That's why this template is listing all franchises owned by the Lucas franchise fyi the company. No where on the template does it say owned by the man himself George Lucas. I can now see that this deletion is in error. --VitasV (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Except, the template header links to George Lucas. Considering there is no article on this amorphous concept of "the Lucas franchise" (Lucasfilm? LucasArts? Skywalker sound?), a template to move between them remains dubious, ORish, etc. etc. --EEMIV (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. It's sound and fury signifying naught. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment WHAT! That's not a relevant reason. It's as if of spite you are. Just because you're a mod doesn't mean you can abuse your powers. Also seeing as you want me gone by flinging wild accusations over these socks and whatever they are, I beleiving that the two of you are somehow trolling me or maybe you two are socks or shoes or whatever. Don't think you can deny. Not to mention looking at EEMIV's talk page, he's pretty much used to doing it. --VitasV (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, Further Comment I have moved the template so people may better understand that this template is not franchises owned by George Lucas but by Lucasfilm. Now it should be seen here by people that this template is relevant. --VitasV (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Items' inclusion here remains dubious (to say nothing of why some series are a "franchise" and not others). "Lucasfilm" deals with movies, already covered at the George Lucas template. Lucasfilm has nothing to do with the video games and books. --EEMIV (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Jackson timeline

Template:Jackson timeline (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Timeline places much more emaphisis on certain aspects of its subject than others leading to undue weight and deviations from NPOV. Many dates do not appear in the prose of articles and are not sourced meaning timeline is largely unverifiable. Stylistically the template is also very large, and clutters the articles it is found in. Solid State Survivor (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable means that no sources exist, so that's not correct. All these dates are easily verifiable. And you're right that these dates don't appear in our Jackson articles, which is worrying, and it's why I created it. Relying on WP's Jackson articles alone, a person would come away confused about the sequence of events, in my view. This template offers a chronological structure. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed Necessary to have a better view. Elmao (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• OPPOSED There is nothing wrong with it. It better defines the article, and makes it more appealing. Who ever nominates stuff like this please get a life.--Subman758 (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Read WP:NPA, your argument isn't stronger by saying things about the nominator, and makes you look foolish. — Moe ε 03:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Stylistically unwieldy, shoving around images and other infoboxes on transcluded pages. Agree that items are non-npov/offer undue weight. More troubling, they aren't cited (particularly important since transcluded pages might not include prose/details/refs from which abbreviated timeline entry is derived). Template might be salvageable if substantially trimmed and inline citations are added. --EEMIV (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete This template is, at best, incomplete. Holes in the template such as "1979: Off the Wall; broke his nose, first rhinoplasty." and "Jan 1984: Burns his scalp filming Pepsi ad; starts using painkillers; third rhinoplasty." There was no second rhinoplasty, I guess.. In any case, things like that, are unimportant. His life is best summed up in his article and the articles about his appearance, death, etc. In addition to that, there are already templates at the bottom of the article which already reflect things like the discography of his music in order of release, and links to articles about his personal troubles (Template:Michael Jackson). The only reason this template exists is because of the overly-hyped media frenzy surrounding his recent death. Lets not get all caught up in the hoopla of it as well. — Moe ε 03:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I just don't know when the second rhinoplasty was, which is why it's not mentioned. Please, by all means do the research and add it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I understand, I would prefer if the rhinoplastys were removed, to be honest (a note on his physical appearance beginning to change linking to the article on his appearance should suffice on this template). Inline citations and the collapsible feature should probably be added as well, if it is to be kept. — Moe ε 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with moe, this was definitely created in spur of the moment- it'll pass people 8:58 10 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.32.151 (talk)

• Delete. Undue weight given to Jackson's personal life in the this template. Quite frankly, this template fails to help any user navigate and highlights very little of Jackson's career and accomplishments. — Σxplicit 05:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for now'. A somewhat fixed and reasonably reliable chronology is helpful to provide some guidance for editors dealing with the special "onslaught" that the related articles are presently under. This "structural" assistance provided by this framework will be unimportant to most of the articles after another week or two. Steveozone (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose and improve. Starting with collapsibility should help. DodgerOfZion (talk)
• Delete in its current form. Certainly created in good faith, but suffers from recentism and is not too encyclopedic. We already have Template:Michael Jackson, but it is still possible to create some nice page with milestones of his life. Brandt 08:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the information can be found at the bottom of the page, it adds no weight to the articles it is on and is a waste of space. StephenBHedges (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The actual information is present in the BLP. There's no need of this template as it is a minor reperesentation of the life and works of MJ. I appreciate the good faith behind it, but I see no reason for it to be encyclopedic. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: The timeline is by no means necessary, but is succint and helpful if one is looking for an overview of Jackson's life (and death). Tikkuy (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Subst and delete - This is used in 2 articles; no reason to actually use a template. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep — Succinct timeline that gives the highlights of subject's life, if that is all someone is interested; can be improved to include links to areas of interest to the reader. After this discussion is closed, I would recommend putting collapsible templates such as this in the biographies of the most notable living persons; however, this would have to come after a major discussion on whose bios to include this in (e.g., U.S. presidents). [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]] (P.S. — the timeline could be improved to include only the most important events in his life).
• Keep. The reason I created this is that I couldn't find the information in our Michael Jackson's articles. I had to go offwiki to get most of the chronology. It gives people a good overview of a complicated life, and it will doubtless improve over time. If it gets too large, it can be collapsed. Parsecboy says it's used in only two articles, but that's because a couple of people who don't like it keep removing it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It is absolutely inherently POV. And I am not generally comfortable with reducing anybody's life to a simple list. And I absolutely hate how these templates dominate a page to the exclusion of text and images. Yes, the main article is absolutely rubbish if you want to quickly determine basic facts and dates, especially the lede, but as can be seen on the talk page, attempts at rectification are futile, it is a FAC apparently. But a template like this is not a satisfactory fix to this problem. MickMacNee (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Mick, just a point about the Michael Jackson article: if everyone who doesn't like it decides that it's futile to fix it, then it will be futile. That it was given FA status is all the more reason to try to get it right, via a Featured Article Review if necessary. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose/Keep - This is one of the only ways in which Michael Jackson's life is in chronological order, and the events and articles are even more organized than they are in the original Michael Jackson templae. 98.105.130.74 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC) — 98.105.130.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - the material in the template should be properly summarized in the lede, or if it of such length as to be unmanageable, then a case can be made for a seprate summary article. A template is not the answer. -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Response — I think that's the whole point of a template — to effectively summarize in chronological order a person's life for someone wanting just that — the basics. Whether said template is a fair summary of a person's life or POV should be left to the reader. Many print encyclopedias use both a lead summarizing the notability of the subject and then a capsule (similar to the Jackson template being debated here) highlighting the most important events in the person's life (for instance — birth, marriage, collegiate degrees, other major milestones and death); again, if the template is patrolled and cruft is left out, then it can be useful, and the same goes for similar biographies that would have a similar template in the future. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]]

• Delete - I don't think we should try to summarise someone's life in a template like this. Unlike Template:Michael Jackson (which links together all the articles we have about him), this one seems to be an attempt to reduce the essentials of Michael Jackson to a template; however, there's no way of doing that without inherently violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. What events should be included? The template, as it is, seems to me to give too much weight to Jackson's personal life and 'scandals', but others might disagree. The point is, there simply is no objective way of reducing someone's life to a series of bullet points like this, especially not someone as famous and controversial as Jackson. The only way to cover his life objectively is as a whole in the Michael Jackson article. This should be deleted, and similar templates discouraged in future. Robofish (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment — Well, that's what I'm hoping we Wikipedians can debate a future discussion — the usefulness and standards/guidelines for these life timelines of notable individuals, and who would get them. The only other point I'd make at this time is concerning the remark on the seemingly "scandal"-heavy focus of the timeline, which I don't think it has to be. If you include one or two of the biggest ones (the 1993 and 2003 cases and their outcomes) in two or three sentences tops, that would suffice; then include complete coverage in their individual articles and the main Michael Jackson one, along with lesser scandals in the main Jackson article (without the bulleted points). [[Briguy52748 (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)]]

• Oppose - As anybody who opposed for voting. This is too crap for a historical timeline about his lifetime. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 16:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait...is that "oppose" keeping or "oppose" deletion? I think you mean the latter, but folks who disagree that that position have been using "oppose," too. --EEMIV (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The template may need some improvement, but we don't delete articles either, just because they need improvement. Timelines are not inherently flawed with regard to WP policies.  Cs32en  00:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Remark: The timeline should be shortened. Timelines (except for appendices in larger works) are not there to tell a story, but to provide a quick answer to simple questions such as "Did Jackson do this (what is being described in the article) before or after Thriller was released?"

• Gah! looks like a good effort to connect a bunch of articles. Cs32en couldn't have said it better. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep If the template needs improvement that would not be a reason to delete. QuackGuru (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for valid reasons already stated. Fluppy (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete Too many events in his life have occured that its impossible to narrow it down to a timeline. Theres no real reason for the timeline either, except to take up space. Portillo (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep BUT edit and simplify. A simple timeline with links to relevant articles could be a really useful template. Maybe a horizontal one for the bottom of relevant articles? Nesnad (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Portillo. Why are these specific events the ones that were chosen? And then, in addition, this template takes up principal space on every MJ article. An article on his timeline (example: Timeline of Fairuz), would be one thing, but this is entirely different. - Epson291 (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Response — I didn't make the template, but my guess as to why specific events are included is because they are notable milestones in his life and career. Take, for instance, a World Book Encyclopedia article on any one of the presidents. Each of these articles includes a timeline of the subject's life, and only includes specific events (his birth, perhaps a college graduation, marriage, naval service, first election to a state or national office, election to the presidency (and any subsequent defeats), and death). Such would be what I envision as ideal for the Michael Jackson timeline: his birth, formation of the Jackson 5, singing to Motown and mention of their first (and only the first) national hit as part of the Jackson 5 (or absent that, the dates of their poularity peak), perhaps his first solo hit and/or his/the Jacksons' later signing to Epic records, the release of Thriller (the album and music video, since these are two separarte events), the dates of two major child molestation scandals (with simple explanation), his marriages to Lisa Marie Presley and Deborah Jeanne Rowe, and his death. I'm sure many would agree these are the most important events in his life. I wish there were a way to keep the template shorter, or at least smaller (e.g., similar in appearance to the bio infobox templates, with smaller font). So along with my keep argument from earlier, I'd suggest improving it in that way. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)]]

• Convert to "Timeline of Michael Jackson" article per Epson291 - hmm, I guess that might be a sorta good idea given that it won't really work in a template. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. A better template can be made about Jackson, and it doesn't need to be a timeline of random events — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 01:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 7

[edit] Template:Alt Image

Template:Alt Image (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

WP:TFD #2: The template is redundant to a better-designed system added to Wikipedia in October 2008 (see WP:ALT #History). Template:Alt Image/doc#New solution states that the template is no longer needed. Template does not appear to be used by any Wikipedia articles. Eubulides (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Deprecate mark historical. I would suppose that persons who would benefit from this template would also look into historical versions of pages. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Aviation accidents and incidents

Template:Aviation accidents and incidents (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

These navboxen, one two for each year, duplicate Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2009, contrary to WP:Template namespace#Usage "Templates should not be used to create lists of links to other articles when a category or a See also list can perform the same function.", introducing a configuration management (coherence) problem unnecessarily. LeadSongDog come howl 16:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There was prior discussion recently at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Template:Aviation_incidents_and_accidents_in_2009. There are several related templates, essentially two for each year of flight plus the basic template. Variant names are "..incidents and accidents.." vice "..accidents and incidents.."

• Comment I saw the per-year navboxes and realized it's really a bad idea to have so many of them with potentially conflicting styles, so I created a master one for style, which all the others transclude. The color was also very distracting (bright orange) which I reverted in the master to less conspicuous default purple-blue. In addition, I made sure they are all collapsed by default in the master (they were all uncollapsed originally). I have no strong opinion on the core issue of navboxes at the bottom of crash articles; I can live with or without them, as long as they are collapsed by default and inconspicuous. Crum375 (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Duplicates Categories. Perhaps one template could be created for use on all the accident/incident articles. - BilCat (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Oppose as right now, there are many templates regarding as aviation accidents or incidents per year. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 17:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes - all templates are here - Category:Aviation accidents and incidents templates TouLouse (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. A better implementation is possible to make. For example a template showing chronological aviation accident by decades...(1970s ...1980s...2000s) TouLouse (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Further guidance on the topic is at Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates which seems to contradict WP:Template namespace#Usage as quoted above. See it's extensive talkpage too.LeadSongDog come howl 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - this set of templates duplicates the related category structure. Presumes that the reader would want to easily navigate to accidents in the same year and also duplicates information in the Year in aviation articles. The Year in aviation articles provide a short summary so would be better for those wishing to explore accidents on an annual basis. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. If we choose to use navboxes we should learn from Category:Olympics navigational boxes where there are multiple ways of navigating (by year, by sport, by nation). We could equivalently navigate by year, by aircraft, by carrier, by site, by flag, by cause, by severity. It's only got to be auto-generated (by transclusion or by bots) from the cats in order to make sense.LeadSongDog come howl 22:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I find the templates too "busy" to be useful (i.e. too much information trying to be conveyed). The current article appears bold, even though it might have less than 50 fatalies. (Who determined that 50 fatalities was significant?) Duplication of existing categories and lists. The year of the accident is only one dimension of interest - other interesting points of commonality might include the aircraft type, accident type, country etc, etc. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Do not move to Commons

Template:Do not move to Commons (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This template gives an non-important warning, which has a habit of be forgotten in time when suddenly PD laws updates. For example when pd-art gets new allowance in countries etc... A lot of instances of this template is wrong, and best I think is to scrap this template fully. _→AzaToth 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I suspect similar arguments could be made for all maintenance templates, so I really don't see this as a primary objection. - BilCat (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep without it, images will just get deleted at commons when transwikied. Aside from the fact that fair-use images fall out of copyright all the time, so you could say that the "fairuse" tag is a similar warning because it too is temporal. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep due to the oddities of United States law, many images are PD-US but would be deleted if copied to Commons. All too often files are deleted locally after this happens, which means some contributions are needlessly deleted. Perhaps a way to maintain files using the template could be developed, possibly with a parameter that defines when it might be safe to copy them to Commons. -Nard 10:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Its usefulness (avoiding the risk of deleting images by erroneous transfer to Commons) outweighs the problems. --Ferengi (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep useful template, that helps to keep images from possible unnecessary deletion in commons. feydey (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Nard. ddima.talk 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, the template is critical to survival of images that are allowed here but not on Commons. "Scrapping" the template, quite likely, will scrap the tagged images too. NVO (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- this template only offers a purely advisory opinion (which people are free to ignore if they think they have good reason), but in many cases, following the advice will actually save everybody a lot of work all around (i.e. copying an image to Commons, then deletion discussions on Commons, then an admin deletes it on Common, then a request to admin on Wikipedia to undelete the old untransferred version, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• Improve then keep: Add an "expiry" parameter that uses ParserFunctions to hide the entire template once January 1 of the year following the estimated expiry has happened. I almost feel like doing it myself in a personal sandbox. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Update: Done. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• comment After some discussion/thoughs I think the proper way is to merge this template into {{pd-us}} as they both imply each other. _→AzaToth 00:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so -- many PD-US images are perfectly acceptable on Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 6

[edit] Template:Philadelphia Phillies 1st round

Template:Philadelphia Phillies 1st round (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

It is the only one of its kind, and a lot of the players dont have articles. Yankees10 21:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep Although I may be biased as the creator, it's the navigational template to link together players in List of Philadelphia Phillies first round draft picks. In the previous discussion on deleting baseball position templates and the like, it was noted that these navboxes are valuable when there is an appropriate lead article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Category relevant?

Template:Category relevant? (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Category:Articles with unsourced categories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template was recently changed from a section comment to be placed on Talk pages after a category was removed, to an in-line template on main article pages after a category was retained. This is contrary to requirements that all categories be WP:V from WP:RS. That is, the category should always be removed. This (rarely used) template no longer serves a useful purpose.

This was previously nominated for deletion shortly after being created, and was no consensus kept after a 6D:3K discussion. Participants agreed that it would rarely be used, as the usual practice is to immediately remove "dubious", "irrelevant", "unreliable", or "unsourced" categories, with an appropriate edit history.

Currently unused. Function parallels Category unsourced below, and uses the same category. This is even more egregious, as it would be used for unsourced categories that don't even appear relevant....

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I don't understand your statement claiming "requirements that all categories be WP:V from WP:RS." I don't think that applies to maintenance categories, which this category clearly is (also note that the category is hidden). I think this is a very valid maintenance template and category; the fact that it is not used is not relevant to the deletion discussion. I don't think WP practice is to immediately remove unsourced information (except from WP:BLPs); that is why we have maintenance templates and categories. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• You are the original creator of the template, before its perversion from Talk to Article space. I'm not surprised you think it still useful. I agree that sourcing requirements do not refer to maintenance categories, but that's not what the nomination is actually about. Any category that is not sourced should always be removed, as confirmed by several editors in the previous nomination. This has long been required by both policy and practice at en:Wikipedia.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You see that there are editors who have a different opinion... And Wikipedia is all about consensus, not about doing what any one editor thinks is right. So let's await the end of these discussions to see what consensus is, and do not make any more hasty edits in the mean time. Warning posted on last users talkpage. Debresser (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Warning?!?! There's no "edit warring" in this discussion. Stop your ad hominem personal attacks. They are only poisoning the well.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and use. Not at all egregious - it quite often happens that the connection between article 1 and a category X is established in sourced article 2 and the source/mention merely needs to be transferred. Eg an author might be awarded a category-worthy prize, noted in the article on the prize. Occuli (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I have followed the use of this template for over half a year now. It has been used not that many times, but its use has always resulted in the discussion and sourcing or removal of categories. Which makes it a very usefull template. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC) The main reason the category this template sorts into is empty is because of this template, and because I check that category on a daily basis and ask people to help solving any articles in it. Debresser (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful template for its documented purpose, as discussed by other editors above. Furthermore, the use of this template is documented in an editing guideline ("a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow") at WP:CAT#Categorizing pages. Any proposed deletion of the template should reach a consensus on that page as to what the appropriate guideline is; deletion of the template in advance of that is premature.
  I'd like to see support for 1) the assertion that "all categories be WP:V from WP:RS" and 2) the interpretation that this means "the category should always be removed" rather than, for example, obtaining a reliable source. I don't have any problem with following this approach in the more highly scrutinized BLP articles, at least for any category that may be controversial; it's certainly consistent with WP:BLP principles that call for the removal of "poorly sourced contentious material" from such articles (as opposed to the use of the {{fact}} template, which is often more appropriate in non-BLP articles). TJRC (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Debresser added this template to that guideline. There was no prior consensus that this template should ever be used. Remember, this is for irrelevant categories that are not supported by the text, so {{fact}} would not be used either.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter who added it to the guideline. If you have an issue with the guideline, it should be addressed as part of the guideline, on its associated talk page, not as a back-door deletion of the category referenced in the guideline. TJRC (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is some value in giving people an opportunity to know that a category needs sourcing before it disappears from the article — I'm often happy to help seek out sources for LGBT categories, for instance, but just because I'm gay doesn't mean I necessarily have a psychic ability to know or monitor every article that gets questioned — but I also agree that two years is far too long to leave it there if that sourcing doesn't get done promptly. I guess that perhaps what I'd like to see is a more organized effort to keep this category clean, perhaps on a "template and unsourced category should never be on an article for more than two weeks" basis. If that can be done, I'd be happy to keep this — but at the same time, I agree that it should be deleted if it's just going to become a cover for leaving disputed categories on articles permanently because nobody ever actually works on the backlog. Update: I'm also not sure what the meaningful difference is between this and {{Category unsourced}} below — while my opinion is still the same, the two templates should be merged into one if this does close as a keep. Update #2: also if kept, make it a talk page template instead. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Category unsourced

Template:Category unsourced (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Category:Articles with unsourced categories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template was recently changed from a section comment to be placed on Talk pages after a category was removed, to an in-line template on main article pages after a category was retained. This is contrary to requirements that all categories be WP:V from WP:RS. That is, the category should always be removed. This (rarely used) template no longer serves a useful purpose.

If kept, it should be restored. As its previous Talk page function, then it might be useful again to start a discussion section.

Currently used on 2 articles, clearly showing that it's not really useful in the article space, and the maintenance category itself is not well maintained:

• Wieland Speck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), since 2007-10-08 21:56:30
• Warmachine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), since 2009-03-13 12:49:41

Each should have been removed after a week!

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and use. I do not agree at all that unsourced categories should be removed on sight, unless they are controversial. It quite often happens that the connection between an article and a category is established elsewhere and the source merely needs to be transferred; or a source can be established easily if requested. Occuli (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• keep, unless better is proposed - it might be needed to show that an article belongs in a category; especially if controversial or debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud0011 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I have followed the use of this template for over half a year now. It has been used not that many times, but its use has always resulted in the discussion and sourcing or removal of categories. Which makes it a very usefull template. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Both articles in this category are being discussed,, but no solution has been found. That is to say that consensus is that the categories are relevant, but that proper sources have yet to be found. This means that editors unfamiliar with the proper use of this template and categories in general should inform themselves before making unasked for removals.Debresser (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not really worth replying to such an arrogant display of ignorance and ad hominem personal attacks (as I'm long familiar with both templates and categories), but such egregious prevarication should not pass unchallenged:
  1. Wieland Speck has had no discussion on its Talk to date. None at all!
  2. Warmachine has had no discussion on its Talk since 2008-05-28 12:57:27. Obviously, there's been no discussion after placement of this template.
  3. Please stop lying. It potentially confuses the other participants, that don't know they have to check the veracity of your constant misrepresentations.
• The other discussants should note that Debresser was the editor that revised this template, and perverted its usage from a Talk page template to an Article template.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Cat_Search_4_New_Pages#Unsourced_.26_Awaiting_Review, foremost. To last editors personal attacks I'll reply on his talkpage, as the most proper forum for that. Debresser (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Nonsense. That was a direct and proper response to ad hominem personal attacks that are only poisoning the well.
2. Moreover, the user subpage cited has one reference to Wieland Speck (not Warmachine). About a month ago, Debresser added a single comment Who can source Wieland Speck? To date, there has been no response. That is not "being discussed".
3. Debresser, please stop lying. It potentially confuses the other participants, that don't know they have to check the veracity of these constant misrepresentations.
   --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from that, I did not change this template from talkpage to articles. The previous editor doen't know how to understand this edit. Debresser (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1. A correction to your own previous edits. Do you really think we cannot read edit histories?
2. Note the prior words as of 2008-05-30 23:18:01, since 2007-07-24 08:04:36 (Maintenance stuff that is meta and not about the article's prose should go on the talk page.): "Please add this template to an article's talk page, not the article itself...." [emphasis in original]
3. Debresser, please stop lying. It potentially confuses the other participants, that don't know they have to check the veracity of these constant misrepresentations.
   --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Existence of this template doesn't prevent prompt removal of cats, where appropriate. It's not better or worse, than other maintenance tags given for lack of proper sources. Expecting all problems in articles to be removed on-sight is not realistic. --Rob (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful template for its documented purpose, as discussed by other editors above. Furthermore, the use of this template is documented in an editing guideline ("a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow") at WP:CAT#Categorizing pages. Any proposed deletion of the template should reach a consensus on that page as to what the appropriate guideline is; deletion of the template in advance of that is premature.
  I'd like to see support for 1) the assertion that "all categories be WP:V from WP:RS" and 2) the interpretation that this means "the category should always be removed" rather than, for example, obtaining a reliable source. I don't have any problem with following this approach in the more highly scrutinized BLP articles, at least for any category that may be controversial; it's certainly consistent with WP:BLP principles that call for the removal of "poorly sourced contentious material" from such articles (as opposed to the use of the {{fact}} template, which is often more appropriate in non-BLP articles). The proposing editor's incivility exhibited in this discussion does not make his argument any more compelling. TJRC (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry that you feel that way. I'm responding in a purposeful and detailed manner to the disruptive editor that perverted the usage of this template, and continues his constant barrage of personal attacks (here and elsewhere) for several months.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per near-unanimous opinion of other editors. A clearly useful template, as I have just demonstrated for myself. Case in point: it's just spurred me to find a source for the specific example of of Wieland Speck. He's been identified with gay cinema for decades, and a little Googling turns up at least one source for his own personal gay identity, which I've posted at Talk:Wieland Speck for consideration, and which perhaps might make that particular argument moot. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is some value in giving people an opportunity to know that a category needs sourcing before it disappears from the article — I'm often happy to help seek out sources for LGBT categories, for instance, but just because I'm gay doesn't mean I necessarily have a psychic ability to know or monitor every article that gets questioned — but I also agree that two years is far too long to leave it there if that sourcing doesn't get done promptly. I guess that perhaps what I'd like to see is a more organized effort to keep this category clean, perhaps on a "template and unsourced category should never be on an article for more than two weeks" basis. That said, if we do close this as a keep it should probably be merged with {{Category relevant?}}, because they're really pretty much the same thing — but at the same time, I agree that it should be deleted if it's just going to become a cover for leaving disputed categories on articles permanently because nobody ever actually works on the backlog. Update: also if kept, make it a talk page template instead. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kristinia DeBarge

[edit] July 5

[edit] Template:Please help us improve the information on this page (this goes out to Annapolis historians, citizens and Annapolis High students / teachers)

[edit] Template:Torchwood (series 3)

Template:Torchwood (series 3) (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unnecessary navigation template: navigation template for a television 'season' which only contains a single episode/miniseries. No possibility of expansion, as there will not be any further episodes in this season. Robofish (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Neither Torchwood nor List_of_Torchwood_episodes has this template (It is only used on the page for that single episode). The list of episodes already lists everything. I would be fine with it being recreated once the 4th season is aired. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cs-wolves(talk) 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete agree, per nom, no point in having a template with just one page about it. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - no need for this at all. 86.131.237.120 (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - completely stupid. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 08:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Most definitely delete - What idiot thought it was necessary to make this template? It only consists of five episodes telling the same story with nearly identical titles, with no more episodes. nm3yt 10:52 11 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm3yt (talk • contribs) 09:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Pointless unless there was more episodes which there isn't. Whoniverse93 talk? 10:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - one story. If you're seeing the template, you're already on the only episode it links to. It just isn't needed. Digifiend (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Michelle Paver

Template:Michelle Paver (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

All but 2 items of the content were converted to redirects because of lack of sourced content. No need for a nav box consisting solely of the author and one book. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - not needed at this time. Robofish (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Clarence Gagnon

Template:Clarence Gagnon (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

A navbox comprised only of red links, therefore redundant. Ham 18:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - entirely redlinked templates are useless. In this case it could be converted into a list and added to the article, but I'm reluctant to do so as it says 'and many more', so is clearly incomplete. Robofish (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. All red links. Should be in the article as a completed list with a reference. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 4

[edit] Template:Breaking News

Template:Breaking News (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Disrupts page layout, as happened to the Steve McNair page, and unnecessary given existing templates. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I agree that it disrupts the page layout, and no offense, but it can be a nuisance. --Alxeedo TALK 22:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Unneccessary given the 'current event' template. A news item can be an event just like anything else. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• possible redirect to {{current}} ... or delete. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:current since it's a reasonable alias. Could possibly have been speedied as redundant due to the 'current' template. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and not redirect. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and this may cause confusion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Diagnosis Murder character

Template:Diagnosis Murder character (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphan, unused, {{Infobox character}} does the job. I would send it for "speedy" deletion but I noticed that it takes 20+ days to delete templates with this way. I would delete it alone after 7 days but I find it a bit inappropriate. Magioladitis (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - unused and redundant. Robofish (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Honduras Squad 1999 FIFA World Youth Championship

Template:Honduras Squad 1999 FIFA World Youth Championship (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Pre previous discussion, no template for minor tournament. Matthew_hk tc 12:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - navbox template is not needed for youth tournaments. Jogurney (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. -Masonpatriot (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussions

[edit] July 3

[edit] Diagnosis Murder

[edit] Template:Wronguser

Template:Wronguser (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Superfluous duplication of Template:Wrongtitle. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment how is this even possible? If it's not a valid page name, how can it be a valid user name? 70.29.208.69 (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• It's in use on several userpages. I would move it to either the WP or User namespace. It certainly doesn't belong in the main templatespace. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC) On further thought, substitute and delete. It doesn't have enough use to justify existence. And namespacing still concerns me. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There is no reason to delete this, it is a good notification of a users intent on how their name is supposed to be formatted. Template:Wrongtitle isn't a replacement at all riffic (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment it's still not a valid user name, so it's not a wronguser, it's a "I don't like Wikipedia's username policies, so I want to be known as: xxx" 70.29.208.69 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment What is not still a valid user name? I don't understand your comment, can you explain why this should be deleted? riffic (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Completed discussions

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Holding cell (edit)

If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'.

[edit] Closing discussions

Closing procedures:

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Administrator instructions

Closing in progress:

• None Currently

[edit] To review

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_23#Template:Film_screenshot_fur

  • Template:Film screenshot fur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

All occurrences of this template have been substituted. The existing usages of the template listed at User:Erik9/transclusions of Template:Film screenshot fur require manual review to determine the disposition of the images on which they appear: in each case, an acceptable fair use rationale should be supplied, or the image should be tagged for deletion using template:dfu, or nominated for deletion at WP:FFD. When the review of the relevant images is complete, no substituted text of the template should appear on any image, and the template may be deleted. Erik9 (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals get put here until the conversion is completed.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• None currently

[edit] To Substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) get put here until the substitutions are completed, then the template is deleted from template space.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• None currently

[edit] To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

GargoyleBot is a replacement for ^demonBot2, and is available for many large-scale orphaning or replacement projects.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 23
  • Template:Infobox Political Division (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 10
  • Template:Sourcebible (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) replace with Template:Bibleverse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). delldot ∇. 19:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6
  • Template:Hrwiki (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- see detailed instructions for replacement
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached and have been orphaned can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• None currently

[edit] Archive and Indices